putting our eggs in a better basket...business depends. • environmental harm must be prevented by...

PUTTING OUR EGGS IN A BETTER BASKET A SURVEY OF ENGLISH FARMERS’ OPINIONS ON AGRICULTURE POLICY

www.wcl.org.uk

Farmers and conservationists are often pitted against each other in discussions over the future of farming, but the truth is that there is much more that unites us than divides us.

Our research reveals there is even more common ground than might at first be thought, and shows the genuine passion that many farmers have to protect and restore the environment. Key to this is farmers’ belief in the interdependency of nature and farming. Farms can’t succeed without fertile soils, clean air, fresh water, and healthy animals, and farmers are essential guardians of nature who can make vital enhancements to our natural world. Both need each other to survive and thrive, and our research shows farmers are well aware of that.

There is no doubt that nature in England is in crisis. Only 28 countries in the world have lost more nature than us, just 14% of our rivers are classed as healthy, and in some parts of the country it is estimated we have at best 40 years of fertile soils left. It is also unquestionable that agriculture has played a big role in environmental degradation in England. For example, farming accounts for 10% of all UK greenhouse gas emissions and 88% of ammonia emissions, contributing to wildlife loss, climate change, and public health issues. If we are to reverse this downward spiral, it is essential that Government incentivises our farming sector to become more sustainable and humane, and our findings show that farmers are supportive of that direction of travel.

Our research reveals that, for many farmers, the odds have been stacked against them being able to make environmental

improvements, due in large part to the failings of the Common

Agricultural Policy. Farmers have struggled for too long within

a food and farming system that delivers little profit for their

produce, and few incentives to deliver positive outcomes for the

environment and animal welfare. They are ready to embrace a new

system that rewards them for these essential public services.

As we leave the EU, the Agriculture Bill is a once in a generation

chance to rewrite the future of farming and the way we treat our

animals and our environment. By creating a system that rewards

farmers with ‘public money for public goods’, we can ensure greater

protection and restoration of nature for the benefit of people and

wildlife, at the same time as producing high quality, humanely

produced, sustainable food and goods. Alongside this, it is essential

that measures be put in place to make supply chains fairer and

ensure the market provides a fair return for farmers’ produce.

If Government listens to this unity on the need for a sustainable,

humane and nature-friendly approach to future farming, ensuring

strong measures in the Agriculture Bill and the policies that

flow from it, it could deliver a genuine transformation which

reinvigorates farming and nature, helping both to thrive.

Helen Chesshire,

Senior Farming Advisor at Woodland Trust and Chair of Wildlife and

Countryside Link’s Agriculture Working Group.Eight out of ten farmers believe a healthy natural environment is important or very important for their farm business.

• A future Environmental Land Management system must

support and incentivise farmers to protect and enhance

the natural environment on which they know their farm

business depends.

• Environmental harm must be prevented by strong, fair and

properly enforced regulation that applies to all rural land.

Harmful activities of one individual or business can have far-

reaching negative impacts, affecting not only nature but also

other farm businesses in the surrounding area.

Farmers felt most adversely affected by increased costs and reduced profit margins (51%), increased weather volatility (40%), and commodity market volatility (24%).

• Farmers must be assisted to transition to a farming model

that is both more sustainable and more profitable. This

should include moving to lower inputs and investment in

activities that boost productivity whilst contributing to

environmental objectives, such as agroforestry, Integrated

Pest Management, high welfare and agroecological systems.

• Government must commit to net zero emissions from

agriculture by 2040. This must be achieved through natural

and technological innovations that restore nature, increase

carbon storage and reduce emissions. This target must form

part of Government’s wider response to climate change,

including an economy-wide target of net zero in line with

the Paris Agreement.

• Measures must be put in place to ensure farmers receive

a fair return from the market for their produce, and the

power of major retailers to influence farm-gate prices is

used appropriately.

ContentsExecutive Summary 031. Attitude to the environment 052. Common problems 073. Current action 094. Barriers to change 125. Existing farming policy 146. Future farming policy 16

6.1 The need for changes to regulation6.2 Support for a ‘public money

for public goods’ policy7. Plans for farm business 22

7.1 Short-term farm plans7.2 Long-term farm plans

8. Conclusions 269. Methodology 27

9.1 Survey dataset information9.2 Survey questions

FOREWORD EXECUTIVE SUMMARYHere we present the results of a unique survey designed to understand the English farming sector’s view on current and future agriculture policy. Views were sought from a sample of 500 farmers, representative of the spread of the English farming sector, in November 2018.

The results highlight that there are many areas of demonstrable, and perhaps unexpected, consensus between farmers and conservationists on the direction of future agriculture policy. Furthermore, they draw attention to failures of the current system and a keenness amongst farmers for these not to be repeated in future. These results send a clear message to Government on the actions it must take if it wants to secure a vibrant farming industry underpinned by a healthy, resilient natural environment for future generations to enjoy.

Key results, and our recommendations based on these results, are as follows:

A Survey of English Farmers’ Opinions on Agriculture Policy 3Wildlife and Countryside Link – June 20192

Our findings show that a third of English farmers are currently taking no environmental action to address problems on their farms, 44% are undertaking just one or two environmental activities, with a lack of access to capital and uncertainty over agricultural policy and funding post Brexit forming key barriers to environmental action.

• Capital grants must form an essential part of the new Environmental Land Management system. Many crucial environmental and welfare improvements can only be made with capital investment, contributing to management costs alone is not enough. If capital grants are not made available, Government will fail to meet its ambition of leaving the environment in a better state for the next generation.

• Government must use the Agriculture Bill to set multi-annual budgets, reviewed at 5-yearly intervals, that reflect the scale of financial need associated with meeting the Bill’s aims.

• Assurance that post Brexit trade deals will not lead to imports produced to lower standards than the UK must be enshrined in the Agriculture Bill.

Two thirds of farmers report regulation is essential to protect standards, and half agree with the principle of ‘public money for public goods’ compared to one fifth against it. The farmers of the future are the most supportive of an environmental and humane approach to agriculture policy, with 56% of the youngest farmers (aged 21-30) backing a public goods approach and only 15% of that age group against it.

• Government must give clarity on the regulatory framework in which farmers and land managers will operate post-Brexit, including securing a strong regulatory baseline and adherence to clear regulatory principles in the Agriculture Bill.

• Public money for public goods must remain the central focus of the Agriculture Bill. It is essential for the future prosperity of the sector and in the interests of farmers, livestock, the environment and wider society.

• Government must shore up the financial powers in the Agriculture Bill. Public money must only be made available for productivity improvements which contribute to, or at the very least do not undermine, the delivery of public goods. This is essential to provide value for money for the taxpayer and certainty to farmers on the intent of the policy.

Water pollution prevention and animal welfare were deemed by over half of farmers as the highest priority for public funding. Habitat restoration ranked third highest (41%). Public access, carbon storage and historic and cultural environment conservation were viewed as a lower priority.

• All public goods are vitally important, but these results show that farmers’ perceptions of them vary. In order to deliver its objectives in the 25 Year Environment Plan, which include thriving plants and wildlife and connecting people to nature, Government must take a strategic approach to public spending which accounts for what is most in the public interest in a particular locality. Farmers must be incentivised to deliver the enhancements of greatest priority in their area. This will require spatial mapping and effective mechanisms for translating national objectives and priorities into local action.

• Separate from ELM, Government must incentivise farmers to transition to higher welfare farming systems through providing capital grants and rewards. This would increase the amount of food produced to high welfare standards domestically, and mitigate any potential reduction of standards in response to cheaper, lower quality imports.

• There are regulations to which farmers must adhere to prevent pollution, and it is the farmer, not the public, who should bear the cost of compliance. The ‘polluter pays’ principle must be applied and enforced rigorously through regulation to ensure no farmer or land manager benefits financially from failure to comply with the law.

KEY RESULTS

80% of farmers believe the health of the natural environment is important or very important to their farm business

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

A future Environmental Land Management system must support and incentivise farmers to protect and enhance the natural environment on which they know their farm business depends

Environmental harm must be prevented by strong, fair and properly enforced regulation that applies to all rural land. Harmful activities of one individual or business can have far-reaching negative impacts, affecting not only nature but also other farm businesses in the surrounding area.

Farming and the environment are inextricably linked. A healthy environment boosts farming output and quality, while environmentally sensitive land management can transform wildlife habitats and populations, soil health and air and water quality. Conversely, when the health and resilience of nature is compromised, farming and food production suffer. For instance, soils are currently being lost at around 10 times the rate they are created, and this level of soil degradation is estimated to cost the economy £1.2 billion per year, with a reduction in food production a key factor.

Increased weather volatility, as a result of climate change, is also having a demonstrable impact on farmers’ ability to produce food. In 2018 alone, record summer temperatures and drought contributed to failures in crops and saw livestock struggling to thrive. In March 2019, the Government’s National Drought Group stated that groundwater has not returned to normal levels after drought in 2018 and that ‘farmers across all sectors are nervous about the risk of drought in 2019 and below average rainfall will reduce production and increase costs for most of them.’

This chimes with our research showing that farmers are well aware of this interdependency, with 80% recognising that the health of the natural environment is important or very important to their farm business (table 1, fig. 1).

Table 1. How important, if at all, do you think the health of the natural environment is for your farm business?

%

1 (Not important at all) 1

2 (Not very important) 6

3 (Neutral) 13

4 (Important) 42

5 (Very important) 38

Base (all informants) (500)

1. ATTITUDE TO THE ENVIRONMENT

Importance of a healthy natural environment for farm business

Figure 1.

3 - Neutral

5 - Very important

4 - Important

2 - Not very important

1 - Not important at all0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

A Survey of English Farmers’ Opinions on Agriculture Policy 5Wildlife and Countryside Link – June 20194

http://www.ids-environment.com/Common/Paper/Paper_83/Soil%20Erosion.pdf

http://www.ids-environment.com/Common/Paper/Paper_83/Soil%20Erosion.pdf

http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10131_SID5_CostofSoilDegradationfinaldraftaug18.docx

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45084984

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-drought-group-ea-chairmans-statement-march-2019?utm_source=2753b1ef-03ec-4ae5-a1eb-e6ce44f8380e&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-drought-group-ea-chairmans-statement-march-2019?utm_source=2753b1ef-03ec-4ae5-a1eb-e6ce44f8380e&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

KEY RESULTS

Farmers felt most adversely affected by:- Increased costs and reduced profit margins (51%)- Increased weather volatility (40%)- Commodity market volatility (24%)

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Farmers must be assisted to transition to a farming model that is both more sustainable and more profitable. This should include moving to lower inputs and investment in activities that boost productivity whilst contributing to environmental objectives, such as agroforestry, Integrated Pest Management, high welfare and agroecological systems.

Government must commit to net zero emissions from agriculture by 2040. This must be achieved through natural processes and technological innovations that restore nature, increase carbon storage and reduce emissions. This target must form part of Government’s wider response to climate change, including an economy-wide target of net zero in line with the Paris Agreement.

Measures must be put in place to ensure farmers receive a fair return from the market for their produce, and the power of major retailers to influence farm-gate prices is used appropriately.

The picture painted by the problems farmers are reporting is one of a financially-pressed industry. Increased costs and reduced profit margins are the top issue reported by farmers (affecting 51%), and commodity market volatility is the third most pressing concern (reported by 24%) (table 3, fig. 3).

Climate change is clearly already hampering farmers, with increased weather volatility, such as flooding and drought, being the second most commonly reported problem facing farmers (affecting 40%).

Pests and disease was the fourth highest issue (reported by 21% of farmers). There may be environmental and animal welfare issues contributing to this problem. For example, fewer predators exist to control pest numbers due to declining biodiversity and habitat loss, and a higher prevalence of disease can be found in farm animals kept in high density or poor conditions. This result may also reflect farmers’ concerns about pests and diseases growing resistant to pesticides, coupled with increased societal concern about pesticide use.

Loss of wildlife is only seen as an issue by 6% of farmers. This may be an unrecognised problem that contributes towards other on-farm issues such as pests and profitability, which may

be more immediately obvious to the farmer. It is possible that farmers are aware of wildlife declines on their farm and do not see it as a problem, but this would be at odds with our evidence that 80% farmers believe in the importance of a healthy natural environment to their farm business. A more likely explanation that there is a disconnect between farmers’ perceptions and the true state of nature, which we know to be in steep decline.

2. COMMON PROBLEMS

Table 2. How important, if at all, do you think the health of the natural environment is for your farm business? (Breakdown by age)

21 -30

31 -40

41 -50

51 -60

Over 60

% % % % %

1 2 0 0 2 0

2 7 1 8 5 8

3 12 11 11 19 14

4 31 44 43 36 53

5 49 43 38 38 25

Base (all informants)

(59) (106) (147) (130) (64)

There is a high level of recognition across all ages of the importance of a healthy environment to a sustainable farm business. However, this belief is strongest in younger farmers with almost half of those aged 21-30 (49%) believing that a healthy natural environment is very important to their farm business, compared to a quarter (25%) of over 60s (table 2, fig. 2).

Case Study

Richard Bower – Lower Drayton Farm, Stafford

A traditional mixed 300ha family farm with 200ha of arable crops and 250 commercial beef cattle, we have diversified the business to include a farm house, B&B and renewable energy.

Farming as an industry is the most affected by climate change; we need to adapt to this while offering mitigation and maintaining food security. Nature is the very basis of our industry. We are proud to have Higher Level Stewardship agreements on the farm where our activities include: leaving over winter stubbles followed by summer fallows, feeding birds in the winter to cover the hunger gap, and planting wild birdseed mixes and pollen and nectar mixes. We direct drill, leaving trash on the soil surface for birds and to prevent soil erosion, whilst using less fossil fuel to establish the crop. As a mixed farm, the livestock help to fertilise our soils. To support habitat creation and abundant wildlife, we operate a diverse cropping rotation, have planted woodland and use cultural controls where possible to manage weeds, pests and diseases. We have also adopted agroforestry to protect our soils, improve our landscape and provide cover for our grazing animals.

We recognise that if we don’t take care of nature it won’t take care of our business, it is essential that the Government recognises this too.

Figure 2.

Importance of a healthy natural environment for farm business broken down by age

3 - Neutral

5 - Very important

4 - Important


1 - Not important at all

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

Over 60

Wildlife and Countryside Link – June 20196 A Survey of English Farmers’ Opinions on Agriculture Policy 7

Table 3. Which, if any, of the following issues are currently affecting your farm?

%

Increased costs and/or lower profit margins 51

Increase in weather volatility 40

Commodity market volatility 24

Pests and disease 21

Soil compaction/run-off/poor drainage or loss of soil fertility

17

Unreasonable demands from buyers/the market (e.g. for cosmetic qualities, timing)

16

Labour issues (cost/skills gap/shortages etc.) 15

Lack of policy direction (from Local Authority/Government etc.)

11

Housing development threats 7

Loss of farmland birds, pollinators, other wildlife and/or plants

6

None of the above 18

Other 3


KEY RESULTS

A third of farmers are taking no environmental action to address problems on their farms, 44% are undertaking one or two environmental activities and only 19% are undertaking three or more.

Younger farmers (aged 21-30) are approximately twice as likely to take environmental action than those over 60.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

A future ELM system must incentivise protection and restoration of nature, and ensure that resources and advice are available for farmers to understand and monitor environmental indicators on their farms. Indicators include soils, water courses and wildlife populations.

Taking action to improve the environment can help to tackle many of the issues reported by farmers in the previous section – environmental or otherwise – by, for instance, improving the resilience of the farm and boosting profitability. However, it appears that farmers are restricted in the environmental action that they can take to address issues on their farms. A third of farmers (33%) are taking no environmental action, 44% are undertaking just one or two environmental activities, and just under a fifth (19%) are undertaking three or more activities (table 4). Management of soil and water, creation & management of habitats, and conducting techniques such as precision farming to ensure efficient management of nutrients, are the most common activities (table 5, fig. 4).

Table 4. Number of environmental activities currently carried out

%

0 33

1 25

2 19

3 10

4 5

5 3

6 1

Other (un-listed) activity 4


Table 5. Which, if any, of these activities are you currently carrying out on your farm to tackle these problems?

%

Soil assessment/management 26

More efficient management of nutrients and other inputs

24

Habitat management and creation for wildlife (wildflower margins, species rich grassland etc.)

23

Water management (drainage/pond/reservoir investment)

23

Plant more trees/hedges or invest in agroforestry

18

Increase biosecurity/disease prevention measures

18

Cropping innovations (Cover crops/grass leys/rotations/spring cropping etc.)

17

Trials/experiments/investment in new technology 14

Market via co-ops/direct to consumer 9

Staff training/additional recruitment 8

Diversify to non-farming business (holiday lets/building conversion/farm walks/education)

7

Convert to organic production 1


Other 3


3. CURRENT ACTION

Figure 3.

Issues currently affecting farms

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

300

Soil com

paction/ru

n-off/

poor dra

inage

Loss of farm

land birds, p

ollinato

rs

Incre

ase in w

eather v

olatility

Comm

odity m

arket v

olatility

Pests and disease

Incre

ased costs and/o

r lower p

rofit

Unreasonable dem

ands from

buyer

Housing development t

hreats

Labour issues

Lack of polic

y directio

n

None of the above

Oth

er

250

200

150

100

50

0


Case Study

Martin Lines – Cambridgeshire, UK Chair of Nature Friendly Farming Network

I am a third generation farmer from South Cambridgeshire. I grow mainly winter and spring cereals on our family farm of just over 400 acres. We also rent some land and have some contract farm agreements to bring the farm area up to 1400 acres.

For over 10 years, our farm was in the old Countryside Stewardship Scheme to try to improve the natural habitat for wildlife on the farm. We restored many of the hedges around

the fields and established grass strips alongside hedges and ditches, and on our field boundaries. Over this time, we saw a significant increase in wildlife, both flora and fauna.

In the last 5 years, we have been in both Entry Level and Higher Level Stewardship schemes, planting areas of wild bird mixes, creating wildflower areas and flower enhanced boundary strips, as well as leaving an area of fallow land as a food and nesting source. We have over 40 skylark plots distributed throughout our fields and we continue to manage our old ridge and furrow meadows sympathetically. On our rented land we’re in our 2nd year of the new countryside stewardship schemes.

The diversity of the British countryside is an asset that is not only vital to wildlife and production but is also of great value to the general public. The right support is crucial to the continuation of work done by many farmers and land managers to improve the habitats for wildlife in this country. By working together, we can further enhance and improve our countryside for all to benefit.

Younger farmers are approximately twice as likely as older farmers to take environmental action, with 36% of 21-30 year olds managing soils compared to 19% of over 60s, and 31% undertaking water management compared to 14% of over 60s.

Over a quarter (26%) of farmers aged 21-50 are improving wildlife habitats, compared to 13% of over 60s; just over a fifth (21%) of 21-50 year olds are using innovative cropping techniques, compared to just 3% of over 60s; more than a fifth (22%) of 21-50 year olds are planting more trees or introducing agroforestry compared to 9% of over 60s; and over a quarter (28%) of 21-50 year olds are more efficiently managing fertilisers and other inputs, compared to 17% of those over 60 (table 6).

A further follow-up question was asked on which of these activities farmers would like to carry-out, but as the number of farmers who responded in the positive was less than the number of farmers who are already carrying out activities on these problems, there seems to have been a misunderstanding of the question. Respondents may have felt the question did not apply to them if they are already carrying out action, and those that said they wanted to carry out an activity was in addition to those already working on the issues. However, the lack of certainty around the responses means the findings on this question are unreliable and are therefore not included in this report.

Table 6. Which, if any, of these activities are you currently carrying out on your farm to tackle these problems? Breakdown by age

21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over 60

% % % % %

Market via co-ops/direct to consumer 14 9 10 5 6

Soil assessment/management 36 28 24 22 19

Habitat management and creation 24 26 26 20 13

Water management 31 25 22 25 14

Convert to organic 2 1 0 1 2

Cropping innovations 19 24 19 11 3

Staff training/additional recruitment 15 9 7 5 3

Trials/experiments/new tech 19 24 12 9 11

Plant more trees/agroforestry 19 22 24 15 9

Increase biosecurity 17 25 19 18 5

More efficient management of inputs 22 31 27 20 17

Diversify to non-farming business 10 8 9 6 2

None of the above 19 10 19 29 39

Other 2 5 5 4 6

Base (all informants) (59) (106) (147) (130) (64)

Figure 4.

Current activities on farm to address problems

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

100

Mark

et via co-o

ps/ dire

ct to consum

er

Soil assessm

ent/managem

ent

Habitat m

anagement a

nd creatio

n

Wate

r managem

ent

Convert to

organic

Cropping in

novations

Staff

training/a

dditional r

ecruitm

ent

Trails

/experiments

/new te

ch

Plant more

trees/a

grofo

restry

Incre

ase biosecurity

More

efficient m

anagement o

f inputs

Diversify

to non-fa

rming business

80

60

40

20

0

None of the above

Oth

er

120

140


KEY RESULTS

The biggest barriers preventing farmers from making environmental improvements on their farm are:

- Lack of access to capital (41%)- Uncertainty caused by Brexit (41%)

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Capital grants must form an essential part of the new Environmental Land Management system. Many crucial environmental and welfare improvements can only be made with capital investment, contributing to management costs alone is not enough. If capital grants are not made available, Government will fail to meet its ambition of leaving the environment in a better state for the next generation.

Government must use the Agriculture Bill to set multiannual budgets, reviewed at 5-yearly intervals, that reflect the scale of financial need associated with meeting the Bill’s aims.

Assurance that post Brexit trade deals will not lead to imports produced to lower standards than the UK must be enshrined in the Agriculture Bill.

Farmers cite a lack of access to capital and uncertainty caused by Brexit as by far the biggest barriers to making environmental and other improvements to their farm business. Of those surveyed, 41% have experienced lack of access to loans or grants and 41% are struggling to make changes due to Brexit uncertainty.

Certainty on the availability of funding until 2022 is clearly not enough for farmers to make the long-term decisions and investments that will ensure the resilience of their farm in the future. Apprehension around Brexit is likely to include uncertainty over the shape of agricultural policy post-Brexit and, in particular, uncertainty over what funding will be available, the criteria that will need to be met to access funding, and the length of time for which funding will be available. Uncertainty around changes to farm-gate prices, costs of inputs and the impact of new trade deals is also likely to be a factor.

Lack of access to capital as an issue is reinforced by findings in the following chapter on existing farming policy, which demonstrate significant and ingrained issues around the accessibility of capital under current schemes. For example, farmers who want to adopt agroforestry to improve the sustainability of their business and help deliver public goods face a significant capital barrier, in that there is very limited grant support through existing agri-environment schemes.

Lack of access to capital and uncertainty caused by Brexit were almost universally the top two barriers to taking action on farm problems across age, farm size, region and farm type (table 7, fig. 5).

4. BARRIERS TO CHANGE

Case Study

Dave Knight – Wydon Farm, Exmoor

We farm 1,400 acres of upland beef and sheep on Exmoor. For us, lack of capital is a serious blocker to improving habitats for wildlife. Loss of non-productive areas isn’t an issue, we wouldn’t necessarily need to be paid for certain areas to be taken out of production. However, we don’t have the upfront capital to, for instance, buy fencing to exclude livestock to create the habitat that wildlife needs. Without that capital, there is no real incentive to carry out these vital works and our time is better spent elsewhere.

Table 7. What, if anything, is stopping you making [the] changes [mentioned in questions 19 and 20]?

%

Lack of access to capital – either loans or grants 41

Brexit uncertainty 41

Lack of time 16

Bureaucracy (short-term grants, contracts and penalties) 16

Market volatility 14

Land prices 14

Lack of advice 5

Contract or deal with buyers 5

Lack of useful/appropriate research and development 3

Tradition / peer pressure 2


Nothing is stopping me from making changes 5

Other 6


Figure 5.

Barriers to change

250

Lack of access to

capital

Bureaucra

cy

Brexit u

ncertainty

Lack of tim

e

Lack of advice

Lack of appro

priate

/usefu

l R&D

Mark

et volatil

lity

Contract o

r deal w

ith buyers

Traditi

on/ peer p

ressure

Land prices

None of the above

Nothing

200

150

100

50

0

Oth

er

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts


KEY RESULTS

Satisfaction levels with current agri-environment schemes are low.

Farmers felt existing schemes would be most improved by better advice provision and making the application process easier.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

All farmers and land managers must be able to access trustworthy, specialist advice on all aspects of the new ELM system including the application process, environmental delivery, business-planning and complying with regulation. In addition, peer-to-peer advice must be encouraged through mechanisms such as farmer clusters.

Applying for Environmental Land Management contracts must be straightforward to maximise engagement with the new scheme and to ensure no farm is excluded due to lack of capacity to apply. Learning from previous failures of agri-environment schemes is essential if government is to achieve its target of 80% farmers under Environmental Land Management contracts.

Satisfaction levels with current agri-environment schemes are low. Of those surveyed, almost four in ten farmers (38%) felt that existing agri-environment schemes do not meet their needs, while just over a quarter (26%) were satisfied (table 8, fig. 6).

Farmers feel strongly that current agri-environment schemes would be most improved by better advice provision (45%) and making the application process easier (58%, fig. 7).

Table 8. How satisfied are you that current agri-environment schemes meet your needs?

%

1 (Very dissatisfied) 10

2 (Dissatisfied) 28

3 (Neutral) 36

4 (Satisfied) 22

5 (Very satisfied) 4


5. EXISTING FARMING POLICY

Case Study

Carole Bamford – Daylesford Organic Farm, Gloucestershire

Daylesford Organic Farm in Gloucestershire includes dairy, beef, sheep, laying chickens, honey bees, horticulture and cutting flowers. The farm also makes cheese, bread, hams, ferments and pre-prepared meals for five shops and wholesale.

Nature is an excellent indicator that farmers are striking the right balance; farming is about much more than just producing calories. We are required to produce nutritional diversity, we manage critical resources such as water and soil, and we are custodians of unique landscapes.

Farming is critical for the future protection of nature. It was through the dedication of Daylesford Organic Farm’s owner Carole Bamford to support nature - notably bees - that our sister organisation, Daylesford Foundation, founded the Agricology project. Agricology is an information sharing platform on practical, sustainable farming - regardless of labels. Agricology now has 120 contributory institutions and a steering group represented by 25 organisations (including Defra and The Woodland Trust). A range of resources, profiled farmers and events are designed to support all farmers to adopt more sustainable systems, and a monthly vlog follows Daylesford Organic Farm’s Manager Richard Smith through the practical examples at Daylesford.

Figure 6.

Satisfaction with current agri-enviroment schemes

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

1- Very Dissatisfied 2- Dissatisfied 3- Neutral 4- Satisfied 5- Very Satisfied

0

50

100

150

200

Figure 7.

Improvements to agri-environment schemes

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

Easier applic

ation pro

cess

Autonom

y to m

ake managem

ent

decisions

More

opportuniti

es to colla

borate

with oth

ers

More

outcom

e focused

Better a

dvice

Longer contra

cts

None of the above

Oth

er

300

250

200

100

50

0

150


KEY RESULTS

Two thirds of farmers believe regulation is important or very important to protect standards in the farming industry.

Farmers believe regulation would be improved by streamlining assessments to have one whole-farm visit and reducing the number of agencies involved.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Government must give clarity on the regulatory framework in which farmers and land managers will operate post-Brexit, including securing a strong, properly enforced regulatory baseline and adherence to clear regulatory principles in the Agriculture Bill.

Despite farmers’ dissatisfaction with current agri-environment schemes and the high number who say that improvements are needed to existing agricultural regulation, regulation is still seen as vital by a large majority of farmers. This research shows that farmers are not averse to regulation provided that the rules and requirements on them are clear, advice is readily available, and enforcement is fair and proportionate.

Almost two thirds of farmers (63%) say regulation is important or very important to protect standards in the farming industry (table 9, fig. 8). The perceived importance of regulation does however decrease with age, with 71% of younger farmers aged 21-30 thinking regulation is important, compared to 54% of farmers aged over 60 (fig. 9).

Table 9. How important do you think regulation is to protect standards in the farming industry?

%

1 (Not important at all) 2

2 (Not very important) 12

3 (Neutral) 24

4 (Important) 39

5 (Very important) 24


6. FUTURE FARMING POLICY6.1 The need for changes to regulation

A high proportion of farmers also believe that reducing the number of agencies involved and streamlining assessments to have one ‘whole-farm’ visit would make the biggest improvements to farming regulation (table 10, fig. 10).

Table 10. What changes, if any, do you think are needed to make farming regulation and enforcement more effective?

%

Streamline assessments to have one (whole farm) visit cover multiple requirements

55

Reduce the number of agencies involved 51

Streamline scheme application process 45

Ensure local advisor support is readily available to enable prevention and correction before enforcement

32

Provide more advice/support to improve my understanding as to what I am delivering through my scheme agreement

30

Provide local workshops to share knowledge and improve technical expertise

16

No changes required 8

Other 5


Case Study

Mike Kettlewell - Over Norton Park Farm, Oxfordshire

Our experience of current environmental schemes, on a mixed farm in the Cotswolds, is that they are not user friendly, and they are unduly punitive for trivial infringements of process.

For UK farming to survive, there will need to be a better balance of power between farmers, processors and retailers. The current economic model favours increase in size and industrial methods in agriculture that are intrinsically hostile to the wider environment.

Penalties for polluting need to be severe and enforced. There needs to be stringent regulation on chemical use and safety, all against a background of profitable farming.

Figure 9.

3 - Neutral

5 - Very important

4 - Important


1 - Not important at all

Importance of regulation broken down by age

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

Over 60

90%70%50%30%10%

Figure 8.

Importance of regulation

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

1- Not important at all

2- Not very important

3- Neutral 4- Important 5- Very important

0

50

100

150

200


RESULTS

Half of farmers agree with the principle of public money for public goods, only one in five disagree

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Public money for public goods must remain the central focus of the Agriculture Bill. It is essential for the future prosperity of the sector and in the interests of farmers, livestock, the environment and wider society.

Government must shore up the financial powers in the Agriculture Bill. Public money must only be made available for productivity improvements which contribute to, or at the very least do not undermine, the delivery of public goods. This is essential to provide value for money for the taxpayer and certainty to farmers on the intent of the policy.

The majority of farmers support the Government’s move towards a policy of ‘public money for public goods’, with half (50%) agreeing or strongly agreeing with the principle. One third of farmers are neutral, and fewer than one in five (19%) disagree with the principle (table 11).

Table 11. The government has indicated that it will allocate future support for farmers on the basis of a principle of ‘public money for public goods’. To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the government’s proposal?

%

1 (Strongly disagree) 4

2 (Disagree) 15

3 (Neutral) 30

4 (Agree) 30

5 (Strongly agree) 20


Younger farmers are slightly more likely to agree with the principle of ‘public money for public goods’ than older farmers. 55% of farmers aged 21-30 are for the principle with only 15% against, compared to 45% of those over 60 agreeing with the policy and 19% disagreeing (fig. 11).

Figure 10.

Improvements to regulation

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

Reduce number of agencies

Streamline application

process

Local advisor support

to enable correction

before enforcement

Streamline assessments to have one visit cover

multiple requirements

Local workshops

to share knowledge

and expertise

0

50

100

150

250

No changesrequired

OtherMore advice to improve

understanding of delivery

200

6.2 Public money for public goods

Figure 11.

3 - Neutral

5 - Strongly agree

4 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly disagree

Agreement with public money for public goods broken down by age

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

Over 60

RESULTS

Farmers viewed water pollution prevention, animal welfare and

habitat restoration as most eligible for government funding.

Public access, carbon storage and historic and cultural environment conservation were viewed as the least eligible options.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

There are regulations to which farmers must adhere to prevent pollution, and it is the farmer, not the public, who should bear the cost of compliance. The ‘polluter pays’ principle must be applied and enforced rigorously through regulation to ensure no farmer or land manager benefits financially from failure to comply with the law.

In order to deliver its objectives in the 25 Year Environment Plan, which include thriving plants and wildlife and connecting people to nature, Government must take a strategic approach to public spending which accounts for what is most in the public interest in a particular locality. Farmers must be incentivised to deliver the enhancements of greatest priority in their area. This will require spatial mapping and effective mechanisms for translating national objectives and priorities into local action.

Separate from Environmental Land Management, Government must incentivise farmers to transition to higher welfare farming systems through providing capital grants and rewards. This would increase the amount of food produced to high welfare standards domestically, and mitigate any potential reduction of standards in response to cheaper, lower quality imports.

Water pollution prevention is the option rated by most farmers as deserving Government funding in future farming policy, with more than half of farmers (56%) believing activity preventing water pollution should be subsidised. Government must ensure the ‘polluter pays’ principle is properly applied and enforced, so there is a clear line between what farmers are legally required to pay for themselves, and where incentives for going beyond the regulatory baseline are available.

Animal welfare (50%) and habitat restoration (41%) ranked more highly than food productivity and competitiveness, which ranked equally with biodiversity conservation at 38%. Soil conservation and protection of crop, tree, plant and bee health were ranked closely behind at 37% and 35% respectively (table 12, fig. 12).

6.3 Environmentally sensitive options that warrant public support

300


Given farmers’ concerns over the impact of increased weather volatility on their farms, it is surprising that flood mitigation (29%) and carbon storage (13%) were not deemed higher priority. To protect our landscapes and communities from the impacts of climate change, it is essential that farmers are incentivised to undertake these activities where they will deliver the most public benefit.

Social public goods, specifically public access (13%) and conservation of the historic environment (21%), were deemed of low importance for public funding. However, while these public goods may be seen as lower priority by farmers, this does not automatically mean that they should be less eligible for funding. Experiencing our precious landscapes first-hand, and the nature they support, is crucial to connect people to nature. Secretary of State Michael Gove has highlighted the importance of public access in enabling people to better understand farming, and the important work undertaken by the sector. Farmers should be encouraged to see public access, with the appropriate advice and guidance, as an opportunity to support diversification of their business.

In order to deliver its 25 Year Environment Plan objectives, such as connecting people to nature and mitigating and adapting to climate change, Government must take a strategic approach to public spending which accounts for not only what farmers want to deliver, but what is most in the public interest and will provide the greatest benefit in a particular locality. Farmers must be incentivised to deliver those enhancements of greatest priority in their area, which will require spatial mapping and effective mechanisms for translating national objectives and priorities into local action.

The list of options farmers were asked to consider was taken from the Government’s ‘Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming, and the environment’ consultation.

Table 12. Which of the following, if any, do you class as environmentally responsible options to warrant receiving support?

%

Water pollution prevention 56

Animal welfare 50

Habitat restoration 41

Biodiversity conservation 38

Food productivity and competitiveness 38

Soil conservation 37

Protection of crop, tree, plant, and bee health 35

Flood mitigation 29

Landscape character 27

Air pollution prevention 24

Preservation of rural resilience and traditional farming and landscapes

24

Technological innovation 24

Historic and cultural environment conservation 21

Carbon storage 13

Public access 13

None of the above 6

All of the above 2

Don’t know/unsure 2

Other 3


Figure 12.

Environmental options that warrant public support

Soil conserv

ation

Habitat r

estora

tion

Biodiversity

conservatio

n

Wate

r pollu

tion pre

vention

Air pollu

tion pre

vention

Flood miti

gation

Carbon sto

rage

Public access

Animal w

elfare

Landscape characte

r

Historic

and cultura

l enviro

nment c

onservatio

n

Food productiv

ity and com

petitiveness

Prote

ction of c

rop, tr

ee, plant ,

and bee health

Technological innovatio

n

Preserv

ing rura

l resilie

nce and traditi

onal landscapes

None of the above

All of t

he above

Don’t know/u

nsureO

ther

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

250

200

150

100

50

0

300


https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/news/2018/january/public-access-is-a-public-good.aspx

One third of farmers have no plans to change their farms in the short-term (table 13, fig. 13). This is more pronounced in older farmers. Younger farmers are more likely to want to improve and/or streamline their business and expand their existing farming enterprises. 20% of farmers under fifty want to improve nature on their farm in the short-term, while only 10% over 50s want to do so (fig. 14).

Table 13. What are the plans for your farm in the short term (the next 5 years)?

%

No change – stay the same 34

Improve and/or streamline 41

Become organic 2

Improve nature on the farm 16

Diversify into non-farming business 13

Retire / hand over to new generation 4

Sell the farm 1

Don’t know/uncertain 8

Establish new farming enterprise 7

Expand existing farm enterprise/s 22

Other 1


Out of those farms who wanted to expand their existing farm enterprise or establish a new farm enterprise in the short-term, 70% and 76% respectively wanted to expand into livestock farming (‘livestock’ covers beef, sheep, and pigs - there were separate options for dairy and poultry), (figs. 15 and 16). This is significant given the impact of livestock farming on climate, air and water quality. Given the financial pressures and drivers for the farming industry, this suggests that livestock farming is seen as the most financially rewarding farm enterprise.

Government must ensure that a strong regulatory baseline is properly enforced to avoid an increase in air and water pollution from potential higher livestock numbers, as this would undermine the value for money of the public investment in environmental public goods. However, with the right incentives, this shift could lead to improvements in animal welfare in livestock sectors such as beef and dairy, which tend to be under represented in participation in higher welfare farm schemes.

7. FARM BUSINESS PLANSKEY RESULTS

Compared to those under 50, farmers over 50 were almost twice as likely to want their farms to stay the same in both the long and short-term. Farmers over 60 were three times less likely to want to improve or streamline their business compared to those in younger age groups.

23% of farmers over 60 plan to retire in the short-term, compared to 2% of those in younger age groups.

Over 70% of farmers who plan to expand or establish a new farm enterprise intend to do so with livestock.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

To enable regeneration in the farming industry, measures must be put in place that support exit from and entry to the sector. This would allow those who wish to retire or otherwise step away from farming to do so with dignity, and provide opportunities and support for younger and diverse new entrants.

Government must ensure that a strong regulatory baseline is properly enforced to avoid an increase in greenhouse gas, air and water pollution from potential higher livestock numbers. Increased pollution from livestock would undermine the value for money of the public investment in environmental public goods.

7.1 Short-term farm plans

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Short term (<5yr) plans

Short term plans (<5yr) broken down by age

50%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Improve nature Unsure

No Change Diversify New farming enterprise

Improve/streamline Retire Expand existing farm enterprise/s

Become organic Sell Other

40%

60%

21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over 60N

o. o

f res

pond

ents

No change - sta

y the sam

e

Impro

ve and/or s

tream

line

Become org

anic

Impro

ve nature

on the fa

rm

Diversify

into

non-farm

ing business

Retire/h

and over to new genera

tions

Sell the fa

rm

Don’t know/u

ncertain

Establis

h new farm

ing enterp

rise

Expand existing fa

rm ente

rpris

e/s

Oth

er

200

150

100

50

0


Table 14. What are the plans for your farm in the long term (more than 5 years)? Breakdown by age

21 -30

31 -40

41 -50

51 -60

Over 60

% % % % %

No change 12 15 23 29 50

Improve / streamline

39 43 31 21 2

Become organic

3 1 2 2 2

Improve nature 15 9 11 8 3

Diversify 19 10 9 7 6

Retire 2 0 1 8 17

Sell 2 1 1 3 2

Unsure 20 23 41 30 16

New farming enterprise

36 38 9 15 8

Expand existing farm enterprise/s

12 10 1 3 2

Other 0 3 1 1 2

Base (all informants)

(59) (106) (147) (130) (64)

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Of those who took part in the study, 29% of farmers are unsure of their long-term plans, 27% want to improve and/or streamline their business and 26% want to stay the same (fig. 17).

Figure 17.

7.2 Long-term farm plans

Older farmers are much more likely to want their farms to stay the same, younger farmers want to improve and/or streamline their business and middle-aged farmers are most unsure; 17% of farmers over 60 plan to retire (table 14).

New farming enterprise (short-term <5yrs)

Livestock PoultryArable Other Dairy Horticulture

Expanding existing farm enterprise (short-term <5yrs)

ArableLivestock Dairy OtherHorticulture Poultry

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

No change - sta

y the sam

e

Impro

ve and/or s

tream

line

Become org

anic

Impro

ve nature

on the fa

rm

Diversify

into

non-farm

ing business

Retire/h

and over to new genera

tions

Sell the fa

rm

Don’t know/u

ncertain

Establis

h new farm

ing enterp

rise

Expand existing fa

rm ente

rpris

e/s

Oth

er

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Long-term (>5yrs) plans

Case Study

Tim Downes - Shropshire

An organic dairy farmer based in Shropshire, I have a long-term ambition to create a sustainable family business which combines new markets and technology with good environmental and welfare practices. Always open to new ideas, we already incorporate trees onto our farm to provide a source of wood fuel and to provide shelter, improve soil conditions and water management. We are now exploring the role trees can play in providing nutritional and medicinal fodder for our herd. This will help support our supply of antibiotic free milk to the US market via the Organic Milk Suppliers Co-Operative (OMSCO). Longer term, we would like to replace all fossil fuel use with renewable energy.

Willow trees for browse on Tim’s farm

Image credit Louise Downes

% r

espo

nden

ts (n

=8

2)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

60%

70%

50%

% r

espo

nden

ts (n

=1

68

)


Farming, farm animal welfare and the environment have all suffered for years under current agricultural policy and its funding structure, alongside an increasingly concentrated market putting downward pressure on farm-gate prices.

This has incentivised unsustainable, intensive food production which has led to environmental degradation and poor conditions for many farm animals, which in turn have damaged farm productivity and profitability.

Our research shows that farmers clearly recognise the need to save our failing environment and improve animal welfare in order to help farm businesses survive and thrive. They report issues like drought and flood from climate change affecting their farms, which demonstrates the link between environmental decline and poor farm performance.

These findings also reveal many farmers are feeling financially stretched and are struggling to make necessary changes to address problems which are affecting their businesses. Government must ensure that its new agriculture policy assists farmers in addressing these environmental and financial problems sustainably. Particularly, measures to help farmers increase their productivity must not translate into rising pollution, other environmental degradation or a lowering of farm welfare standards, which would undermine public investment in public goods.

The main barriers to making environmental and other improvements on farms are lack of access to capital and uncertainty around Brexit – which show it is vital for farmers to have certainty over the structure and levels of funding post Brexit and over funding being continued in the long-term.

Current agri-environment schemes and farming regulation have been a disappointment to the majority of farmers as well as conservationists, but farmers still see regulation as vital to maintaining standards in the sector. Farmers are also on the same page as conservationists about the shape of future farming policy. More than double the number of farmers are in favour of public money for public goods than oppose it. They recognise the need to prioritise environment and animal welfare in future farming funding and Government policy, with more farmers saying that environment and welfare issues should be given ‘public goods’ funding than food production.

This research represents a clear vote from farmers for keeping a strong focus on public goods in future farming policy and legislation. Farmers needs and priorities closely align with the action needed to enhance nature and improve animal welfare, and also with a clear focus on public goods in the Agriculture Bill. Therefore it is vital that the Government sticks to its guns on future farming policy. Any watering down of its plan would be a betrayal, not only of our struggling natural world, but of our struggling farming industry too.

8. CONCLUSIONS 9. METHODOLOGY

Woodland Trust - David Brass & Jonny Walton

Gender

%

Male 84

Female 16

Age

%

30 and under 15

31-40 20

41-50 28

51-60 24

Over 60 13

Position on farm

%

Landowner 68

Tenant 15

Farm Manager 8

Son/daughter of farmer 4

Farm worker 2

Other 4

Type of farming enterprise

%

Arable 31

Horticulture 4

Dairy 9

This research was conducted by AgriSmart Limited. AgriSmart is a member of the Market Research Society – all its research is conducted strictly in line with the Market Research Society code of conduct. All AgriSmart databases are subject to monthly Telephone Preference Service cleaning.

A sample of 500 farmers across England were surveyed between 01 November and 10 December 2018, through a combination of telephone and face-to-face interviews and written/online

9.1 Survey dataset information

questionnaires. Responses were weighted according to up-to-date farm census data for England. The findings cover:

Eight geographical regions: North West, North East, Yorkshire and Humberside, East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, South East and South West

Seven farming sectors: Arable, Beef, Dairy, Sheep, Horticulture, Poultry, and Pigs.

Beef 48

Pig 3

Poultry 5

Sheep 50

Other 2

Farming technique

%

Conventional 77

Organic 4

Low-input 11

High input 12

Other 2

Size of farm

%

0-20ha 5

21-50ha 17

51-100ha 24

101-250ha 33

251-500ha 14

501+ha 5

Other 2


KEY CALLS TO ACTION:• Ensure that public goods such as the environment,

animal welfare and public access remain the central focus of the Agriculture Bill as it passes through Parliament.

• Deliver value for taxpayers’ money. Financial payments will be made to farms for both public goods and farming productivity. These must be complementary - moves to boost productivity must support environmental and welfare enhancements.

• Guarantee long-term public goods-based funding, giving farmers the certainty they need to invest in improving nature, animal welfare and public access.

• Ensure strong, fair and properly enforced regulation that applies to all rural land managers, regardless of whether they receive public funding.

• Ensure farmers receive a fair return from the market for their produce, and the power of major retailers to influence farm-gate prices is used appropriately.


1. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Are you the…

o landowner?

o tenant?

o farm manager?

o other? (please specify)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. In which region is your farm?

o North East

o North West

o Yorks and Humber

o East Midlands

o West Midlands

o East of England

o South East

o South West

5. What type of farming do you conduct on your land? (please tick all which apply)

o Arable

o Horticulture

o Dairy

o Beef

o Pig

o Poultry

o Sheep

o Mixed (assessed post survey)

6. How would you categorise the farming technique used?

o Conventional

o Organic

o Low-input

o High input

o Other – please specify

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Size of farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. What are the plans for your farm in the short term – the next 5 years? (please tick all which apply)

o No change – stay the same

o Improve and/or streamline

o Expand existing farm enterprise/s

o (state which: Poultry/Dairy/Livestock/Arable/Horticulture/ Other - please name)

o Establish new farming enterprise


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

o Become organic

o Improve nature on the farm (e.g. soil preservation/agroforestry etc.)

o Diversify into non-farming business (e.g. tourism/unit rental/education)

o Retire / hand over to new generation

o Sell the farm (please state: to another farmer / landowner / other)

o Don’t know/uncertain

9. What are the plans for your farm in the long term – in more than 5 years’ time? (please tick all which apply)

o No change – stay the same

o Improve and/or streamline

o Expand existing farm enterprise/s


o Establish new farming enterprise

o (state which: Poultry/Dairy/Livestock/Arable/Horticulture/ Other – please name)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

o Become organic

o Improve nature on the farm (e.g. soil preservation/agroforestry etc.)

o Diversify into non-farming business (e.g. tourism/unit rental/education)

o Retire / hand over to new generation

o Sell the farm (please state: to another farmer / landowner / other)

o Don’t know/uncertain

10. Which, if any, of the following issues are currently affecting your farm? (please tick all which apply)

o Soil compaction/run-off/poor drainage or loss of soil fertility

o Loss of farmland birds, pollinators, other wildlife and/or plants

o Increase in weather volatility (drought/flooding)

o Commodity market volatility

o Pests and disease (antibiotic resistance/TB/crop disease etc.)

o Increased costs and/or lower profit margins

o Unreasonable demands from buyers/the market (e.g. for cosmetic qualities, timing)

o Housing development threats

o Labour issues (cost/skills gap/shortages etc.)

o Lack of policy direction (from Local Authority/Government etc.)

o None of the above

11. Which, if any, of these activities are you currently carrying out on your farm to tackle these problems? (please tick all which apply)

o Market via co-ops/direct to consumer

o Soil assessment/management

o Habitat management and creation for wildlife (wildflower margins, species rich grassland etc.)

o Water management (drainage/pond/reservoir investment etc.)

o Convert to organic production

o Cropping innovations (Cover crops/grass leys/rotations/spring cropping etc.)

o Staff training/additional recruitment

o Trials/experiments/investment in new technology

o Plant more trees/hedges or invest in agroforestry

o Increase biosecurity/disease prevention measures

o More efficient management of nutrients and other inputs

o Diversify to non-farming business (holiday lets/building conversion/farm walks/education)

o None of the above

12. Which, if any, of these activities would you like to carry out on your farm to tackle these problems? (please tick all which apply)

o Market via co-ops/direct to consumer

o Soil assessment/management

o Habitat management and creation for wildlife (wildflower margins, species rich grassland, etc.)

o Water management (drainage/pond/reservoir investment)

o Convert to organic production

o Cropping innovations (Cover crops/grass leys/rotations/spring cropping etc.)

o Staff training/additional recruitment

o Trials/experiments/investment in new technology

o Plant more trees/hedges or invest in agroforestry

o Increase biosecurity/disease prevention measures

o More efficient management of nutrients and other inputs

o Diversify to non-farming business (holiday lets/building conversion/farm walks/education)

o None of the above

9.2 Survey Questions


https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

13. In which ways, if at all, would you like to diversify on your farm? (please tick all which apply)

o Add new farming operations e.g. pig unit

o Adding value to existing produce

o Farm shop

o Box schemes (like veg-drop etc)

o Tourism

o Education

o Building rental

o None – do not wish to diversify

14. What, if anything, is stopping you from making the changes in questions 11 and 12? (please tick all which apply)

o Lack of access to capital – either loans or grants

o Bureaucracy (short-term grants, contracts and penalties)

o Brexit uncertainty

o Lack of time

o Lack of advice

o Lack of useful/appropriate research and development

o Market volatility

o Contract or deal with buyers

o Tradition / peer pressure

o Land prices

o None of the above

o Nothing is stopping me from making changes

15. How important, if at all, do you think the health of the natural environment is for your farm business?

o Not important at all

o Not very important

o Neutral

o Important

o Very important

16. The government has indicated that it will allocate future support for farmers on the basis of a principle of ‘public money for public goods’. To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the government’s proposal?

o Strongly disagree

o Disagree

o Neutral

o Agree

o Strongly agree

17. Which of the following, if any, do you class as environmentally responsible options to warrant receiving support?

o Soil conservation

o Habitat restoration

o Biodiversity conservation

o Water pollution prevention

o Air pollution prevention

o Flood mitigation

o Carbon storage

o Public access

o Animal welfare

o Landscape character

o Historic and cultural environment conservation

o Food productivity and competitiveness

o Protection of crop, tree, plant, and bee health

o Technological innovation

o Preservation of rural resilience and traditional farming and landscapes

o None of the above


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. If you had to make a choice, which measures should be prioritised to receive public money in a new English farming policy? Rank the top three you think are most important – 1= Most important 2=Second 3=Third

o Soil conservation

o Habitat restoration

o Tree-planting/agroforestry

o Biodiversity conservation

o Water pollution prevention

o Air pollution prevention

o Flood mitigation

o Carbon storage

o Public access

o Animal welfare

o Landscape character

o Historic and cultural environment conservation

o Food productivity and competitiveness

o Conversion to organic

o Protection of crop, tree, plant, and bee health

o Technological innovation

o Preservation of rural resilience and traditional farming and landscapes

o None of the above


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19. How satisfied are you that existing agri-environment schemes meet your needs?

o Very dissatisfied

o Dissatisfied

o Neutral

o Satisfied

o Very satisfied

20. What changes, if any, would you make to improve current agri-environment schemes?

o Easier application process

o More autonomy to make management decisions

o More opportunities to collaborate with others

o More outcome focused

o Better advice

o Longer contracts

o None of the above


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21. How important do you think regulation is to protect standards in the farming industry?

o Not important at all

o Not very important

o Neutral

o Important

o Very important

22. What changes, if any, do you think are needed to make farming regulation and enforcement more effective?

o Reduce the number of agencies involved

o Streamline scheme application process

o Ensure local advisor support is readily available to enable prevention and correction before enforcement

o Provide more advice/support to improve my understanding as to what I am delivering through my scheme agreement

o Streamline assessments to have one (whole farm) visit cover multiple requirements

o Provide local workshops to share knowledge and improve technical expertise

o No changes required


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


This research and report is supported by the following Link member organisations:

With thanks to the following organisations for funding the research and creation of this report: the Kestrelman Trust, Woodland Trust, WWF-UK, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace UK, National Trust, RSPB, Sustain, CPRE, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, People’s Trust for Endangered Species, Butterfly Conservation.

Wildlife and Countryside Link, in partnership with Sustain.

putting our eggs in a better basket...business depends. • environmental harm must be prevented by...

Documents